Jewish World Review Sept. 8, 2003 / 11 Elul, 5763
No Child Left Behind: A Primer
The law requires states to test students in grades 3-8 annually in reading and math; states pick their own exam. In 10 years, all students are supposed to test as "proficient." (Look for the definition of "proficient" to drop.) Test scores at individual schools must improve for all students and for minorities, low-income students and other subgroups.
If a school receiving federal Title I funding misses the target two years in a row, students must be offered a choice of other public schools to attend. (If there’s a good school nearby, it’s unlikely to have room for transfers.) If a school fails to improve three years in a row, students must be offered vouchers good for extra help, including private tutoring.
Teachers in core content areas must be "highly qualified,"certified and knowledgeable about the subject matter taught. (Look for the definition of “highly qualified” to drop.)
The law funds "research-based" reading programs for elementary students.
Despite shortcomings, NCLB is forcing schools to focus on their weakest students. The promise of tutorial vouchers for students in failing schools has the potential to make a difference: There are plenty of companies with experience helping middle-class students; they're eager to tutor low-income students who have a voucher to pay for extra help. Poor parents will have choices.
In Slate, Alexander Russo worries that too many schools can't meet NCLB's standards.
What's more, the law unintentionally creates a situation in which NCLB is pretty much all bad news, all the time. Parents who thought their children's schools were doing fine are told the schools are lagging. Parents who were supposed to get the chance to transfer their children to a better school find out that there's nowhere to go, or decide they'd rather keep their kids in a failing neighborhood school than ship them across town. Parents at schools that are required to take in transfer students worry about the impact of the transfers on the school. The press has frequently taken side with the teachers, progressive reformers, and education officials who generally dislike the law.
This is a very real concern.
Genes, Environment and IQ
What determines intelligence: genetic inheritance or environment? According to a new study, environment is the key factor for poor children; for middle-class and wealthy children, it's mostly a matter of genes. The Washington Post reports:
Specifically, the heritability of IQ at the low end of the wealth spectrum was just 0.10 on a scale of zero to one, while it was 0.72 for families of high socioeconomic status. Conversely, the importance of environmental influences on IQ was four times stronger in the poorest families than in the higher status families.
"This says that above a certain level, where you have a wide array of opportunities, it doesn't get much better" by adding environmental enhancements, (Sandra) Scarr said. "But below a certain level, additional opportunities can have big impacts."
Researchers want to figure out what factors might raise poor children's intelligence. Will quality day care make a difference? Mark Kleiman writes that Head Start, as is,won’t be enough.
Head Start was a nice idea, but the execution was lousy and the measured results have been uniformly disappointing. The emphasis is social rather than cognitive, and staffing tends to be "community" members rather than the skilled teachers needed to to do the job of helping kids from poor families overcome the heavy handicaps they carry as they enter school.
Kleiman notes that everyone cites the success of Head Start's precursor, the Perry Preschool Project, which raised graduation rates and lowered crime and welfare rates. But Perry was "much more intensively academic and much, much more expensive than Head Start itself: it cost about $4000 (in 1967 dollars) per kid, or about $20,000 per kid in today's money."
Perry also involved home visits; teachers encouraged mothers to provide a more stimulating environment for their children. And the greatest gains came for the children of mothers who were hired to work as pre-school aides. In other words, it's likely the program worked by changing mothers' behavior, not merely by exposing kids for a few hours a day to marginally better trained caregivers.
President Bush wants Head Start to stress language development, which is critical to helping children learn to read. The Head Start establishment is opposed, claiming children will be pushed beyond their readiness level.
Well, nobody's proposing to drill little kids on their ABC's. But what's so awful about trying to develop vocabulary -- or even reading an alphabet book? Middle-class kids don't stress out when they're shown a picture of an apple next to an "A."
Girls just want to preenfor the first day of school, and some girls have the money for highlights, waxes, nose jobs and custom clothing, reports the New York Times.
"It's like the new start of everything," Samantha said. "Everyone will say they don't care, but they do. Everyone's trying so hard. Everyone's at the tanning salon. Like seven kids I know got nose jobs just this week."
...According to Irma Zandl, a Manhattan consultant who studies trends among teenagers, this year it's Japanese hair straightening, Brazilian bikini waxing, teeth whitening at a dental day spa and eyebrow sculpturing.
Of course, most teen-age girls can't afford back-to-school makeovers, much less a nose job. They're satisfied with a few new outfits and a hair cut.
In my day, girls would appear in September with a new name: Cindy would become "Cindi" or perhaps "Cyndi." The dot over the "i" would be a heart. As a "Joanne," this route was not open to me.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
08/29/03: The Decline and Fall of Social Studies